Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empty from the place of occurrence--- Scope--- Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing as a result of domestic dispute---Record transpired that although an empty of .30 bore was recovered during the spot inspection and as per statement of concerned Medical Officer, an entrance wound on the left side of the neck just behind the ear and exit wound on the forehead just above the right eye was observed---However, since no recovery had been effected from the accused, therefore, the alleged recovery and the postmortem report became immaterial, as such piece of evidence was a corroboratory evidence which did not identify the assailant, especially when the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on his own observation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing as a result of domestic dispute---Occurrence allegedly took place in a Market, however, unfortunately no one amongst the shopkeepers was cited as witness to have seen the occurrence---Although the Medical Officer while appearing in the witness box stated that the dead body was brought and identified by two persons, however, only one person appeared before the Trial Court, but he did not utter a single word regarding transportation of the dead body from the spot to the hospital---Other witness was not produced before the Court---Even the complainant SHO while deposing before the Court, was unable to mention the name of the person who allegedly informed him about the occurrence on mobile phone, nor he mentioned cell phone number of the alleged informer---Complainant was also unable to tell as to whether the dead body was brought to the hospital by relatives of the deceased or private persons---Said witness stated that when he reached to the emergency room of hospital, only medical staff was present with the dead body---Even complainant was unable to give the name of the person who identified the dead body before him---Said witness was also unaware about the wounds on the dead body---Said witness clearly admitted that no private person as well as the relative of the deceased had come forward for report---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing as a result of domestic dispute---Prosecution did not succeed in establishing the alleged motive---As the parties were not in a blood-feud, so in such eventuality the importance of the alleged motive gained much weight and once alleged, the prosecution was under the bounden duty to prove the same---High Court observed that absence or weakness of motive would not demolish the prosecution case, but the same principle did not apply here, as the motive was stated to be a dispute between the deceased and his father, so the prosecution was to prove the same in all circumstances--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unseen occurrence--- Scope--- Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing as a result of domestic dispute---Record showed that surprisingly the spot was pointed out to the Investigating Officer by nearby shopkeepers, however, as per deposition of that witness those shopkeepers were reluctant to record their statements---Investigating Officer stated that he had not even mentioned their names in the investigation proceedings---Said witness stated that widow and aunt of the deceased were not the eye-witness to the occurrence and the widow and aunt of the deceased were not present at the time of spot inspection---Said witness further stated that he had not mentioned as to how the widow and aunt of the deceased came to know about the incident---Besides, that witness prepared site plan, took into possession blood stains through cotton and an empty of .30 bore, recorded statements of witnesses as well as identifier and received blood stained garments of the deceased at the spot produced by police constable---Shopkeepers were the star witnesses of the occurrence, however, none amongst them came forward to become a witness---High Court observed that in that newly merged area, people avoid to become a witness in such like cases, however, it was equally true that law did not accept such type of an excuse---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single doubt if found reasonable would be sufficient to acquit the accused, giving him/them benefit of doubt because bundle of doubts were not required to extend the legal benefit to the accused.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR ULLAH vs State S — 2023 YLR 1039 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR